Australian Politics Forum - Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M

Bobby. Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 117481 Melbourne Gender:	Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M Reply #15 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:59pm Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:56pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:45pm: 3M / 67 = $44,776 per person. It seems possible. We are talking turnover, not net, not gross. DSmithy? OK - I thought there was $3 Million available for wages.
Back to top	IP Logged

Lisa Jones

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 39047
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M
Reply #16 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:01pm

John Smith wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:16pm:

Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M

of course you can. Dsmithy works in the restaurant industry. A lot of those would be casuals.

What I find hard to believe is your claim that you employ 5 .... I'm calling bullsh1t

My husband just read your post, laughed and said you're a clueless fraud.

The answer is of course no.

The numbers just don't add up.

Next!

Back to top

If I let myself be bought then I am no longer free.

HYPATIA - Greek philosopher, mathematician and astronomer (370 - 415)

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 39701 Gender:	Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M Reply #17 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:02pm Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:56pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:45pm: 3M / 67 = $44,776 per person. It seems possible. We are talking turnover, not net, not gross. DSmithy? Is there some difference between turnover and gross? They mean the same don't they......revenue from 'sales.'
Back to top	IP Logged

Aussie,

Senior Member

Offline

Folks are dumb where I
come from.

Posts: 296
Gender: male

Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M
Reply #18 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:03pm

John Smith wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:54pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:49pm:

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:38pm:

In answer to the thread question, no. Wages would outstrip TO, or close enough to it to detract from the owner undertaking the business.

Unless he employs Aussies Indian wife. They could save on toilet paper costs

Even if the 67 were all casuals and all employed for the minimum of 3-4 hours as they are legally obliged to do (sorry kids, your after school job at the newsagent is no longer viable because unions), I cannot see how this would be possible.

DSmithy?

you might want to run through your numbers again

Perhaps you can spell it out for everyone.
Please include income tax to be paid via the employer.
Payroll tax.
Penalty rates.
GST.
Rent/Lease.
Power.
Water.
Raw materials cost.
Company tax.
Wastage.
Advertising/marketing.
Business registration.

Back to top

IP Logged

Lisa Jones

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 39047
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M
Reply #19 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:03pm

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:26pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:16pm:

Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M

of course you can. Dsmithy works in the restaurant industry. A lot of those would be casuals.

What I find hard to believe is your claim that you employ 5 .... I'm calling bullsh1t

Most people would list the number of employees as FTEs, but I'm open to see how he manages to employ 67 people for $2-3M turnover. If so, he'll must be paying them the very minimum along with minimum hours for each of them and making a GP so far above the average restaurant that he update be one of the most expensive restaurants in town with the smallest plates and a very exclusive clientele who will pay mega bucks for little food and rotating roster of service people through a single meal...but I'll wait for DSmithy to respond before drawing a conclusion.

DSmithy will be too frightened to come online now.

He's been exposed for talking utter cr@p.

Not to worry, he's got other multi nics to help get him by Roll Eyes

Back to top

If I let myself be bought then I am no longer free.

HYPATIA - Greek philosopher, mathematician and astronomer (370 - 415)

IP Logged

Mistress Nicole

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1278
Gender: female

Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M
Reply #20 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:04pm

Aussie wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:02pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:56pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:45pm:

3M / 67 = $44,776 per person.

It seems possible.

We are talking turnover, not net, not gross.

DSmithy?

Is there some difference between turnover and gross? They mean the same don't they......revenue from 'sales.'

No.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie,

Senior Member

Offline

Folks are dumb where I
come from.

Posts: 296
Gender: male

Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M
Reply #21 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:07pm

Aussie wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:02pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:56pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:45pm:

3M / 67 = $44,776 per person.

It seems possible.

We are talking turnover, not net, not gross.

DSmithy?

Is there some difference between turnover and gross? They mean the same don't they......revenue from 'sales.'

No, they don't.
Google it. Turnover vs GP vs Net profit.

Simple stuff.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39701
Gender: male

Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M
Reply #22 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:12pm

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:07pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:02pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:56pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:45pm:

3M / 67 = $44,776 per person.

It seems possible.

We are talking turnover, not net, not gross.

DSmithy?

Is there some difference between turnover and gross? They mean the same don't they......revenue from 'sales.'

No, they don't.
Google it. Turnover vs GP vs Net profit.

Simple stuff.

Do you seriously reckon I did not google before asking the question?

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie,

Senior Member

Offline

Folks are dumb where I
come from.

Posts: 296
Gender: male

Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M
Reply #23 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:20pm

Aussie wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:12pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:07pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:02pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:56pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:45pm:

3M / 67 = $44,776 per person.

It seems possible.

We are talking turnover, not net, not gross.

DSmithy?

Is there some difference between turnover and gross? They mean the same don't they......revenue from 'sales.'

No, they don't.
Google it. Turnover vs GP vs Net profit.

Simple stuff.

Do you seriously reckon I did not google before asking the question?

Yes. If you didn't you wouldn't have asked a stupid question.

Can you tell me if you can employ 67 drivers with a turnover of $2-3M?

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39701
Gender: male

Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M
Reply #24 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:23pm

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:20pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:12pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:07pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:02pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:56pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:45pm:

3M / 67 = $44,776 per person.

It seems possible.

We are talking turnover, not net, not gross.

DSmithy?

Is there some difference between turnover and gross? They mean the same don't they......revenue from 'sales.'

No, they don't.
Google it. Turnover vs GP vs Net profit.

Simple stuff.

Do you seriously reckon I did not google before asking the question?

Yes. If you didn't you wouldn't have asked a stupid question.

Can you tell me if you can employ 67 drivers with a turnover of $2-3M?

I already have given you one obvious example.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie,

Senior Member

Offline

Folks are dumb where I
come from.

Posts: 296
Gender: male

Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M
Reply #25 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:30pm

Aussie wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:23pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:20pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:12pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:07pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:02pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:56pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:45pm:

3M / 67 = $44,776 per person.

It seems possible.

We are talking turnover, not net, not gross.

DSmithy?

Is there some difference between turnover and gross? They mean the same don't they......revenue from 'sales.'

No, they don't.
Google it. Turnover vs GP vs Net profit.

Simple stuff.

Do you seriously reckon I did not google before asking the question?

Yes. If you didn't you wouldn't have asked a stupid question.

Can you tell me if you can employ 67 drivers with a turnover of $2-3M?

I already have given you one obvious example.

You have given no examples. You asked a question and got told you were wrong. I can't teach stupid.

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 78311 Gender:	Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M Reply #26 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:32pm Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:01pm: My husband just read your post, laughed and said you're a clueless fraud. anyone dumb enough to marry you shouldn't be calling others clueless
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

Aussie, Senior Member Offline Folks are dumb where I come from. Posts: 296 Gender:	Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M Reply #27 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:35pm When you crawl out from under you rock and can understand the difference between turnover and gross profit, you can then have a look at the difference between markup and margin. Don't have a head explosion.
Back to top	IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78311
Gender: male

Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M
Reply #28 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:36pm

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:03pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:54pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:49pm:

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:38pm:

In answer to the thread question, no. Wages would outstrip TO, or close enough to it to detract from the owner undertaking the business.

Unless he employs Aussies Indian wife. They could save on toilet paper costs

Even if the 67 were all casuals and all employed for the minimum of 3-4 hours as they are legally obliged to do (sorry kids, your after school job at the newsagent is no longer viable because unions), I cannot see how this would be possible.

DSmithy?

you might want to run through your numbers again

Perhaps you can spell it out for everyone.
Please include income tax to be paid via the employer.
Payroll tax.
Penalty rates.
GST.
Rent/Lease.
Power.
Water.
Raw materials cost.
Company tax.
Wastage.
Advertising/marketing.
Business registration.

don't change your story ... what you said was 'Even if the 67 were all casuals and all employed for the minimum of 3-4 hours as they are legally obliged to do (sorry kids, your after school job at the newsagent is no longer viable because unions), I cannot see how this would be possible'.

If you stand by THAT statement, you can't add up.

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

Aussie,

Senior Member

Offline

Folks are dumb where I
come from.

Posts: 296
Gender: male

Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M
Reply #29 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:37pm

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:03pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:54pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:49pm:

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:38pm:

In answer to the thread question, no. Wages would outstrip TO, or close enough to it to detract from the owner undertaking the business.

Unless he employs Aussies Indian wife. They could save on toilet paper costs

Even if the 67 were all casuals and all employed for the minimum of 3-4 hours as they are legally obliged to do (sorry kids, your after school job at the newsagent is no longer viable because unions), I cannot see how this would be possible.

DSmithy?

you might want to run through your numbers again

Perhaps you can spell it out for everyone.
Please include income tax to be paid via the employer.
Payroll tax.
Penalty rates.
GST.
Rent/Lease.
Power.
Water.
Raw materials cost.
Company tax.
Wastage.
Advertising/marketing.
Business registration.

Waiting Smith. I'm guessing you have never even heard of most of these, just happy to have a pay slip at the end of the week and bitch about your employer.

Back to top

IP Logged